5 ms·

With regards to stacks that can use all of the memory: Gambit and AFAIK Chicken behave that way, too. This is one of the reasons I chose Scheme over OCaml (and

With regards to stacks that can use all of the memory: Gambit and AFAIK Chicken behave that way, too. This is one of the reasons I chose Scheme over OCaml (and Haskell) over a decade ago when looking for a new language to move to.

wyager 9y ago
Haskell does not have a recursion limit. You can freely use as much memory as you want via recursion. It doesn’t even really have a stack in the traditional sense. The STG machine does use a stack for evaluation, but it’s often completely different from what you might expect if function calls in Haskell actually necessarily corresponded to C-style functions. There is a default limit to the physical stack size, but it’s something like 512MB and you can change it with a command line flag. https://wiki.haskell.org/Stack_overflow https://wiki.haskell.org/Stack_overflow
zielmicha 9y ago
Even Python doesn't need to have stack limit - just make sure C stack is large enough (e.g. using ulimit or pthread_attr_setstacksize) and use `sys.setrecursionlimit(1000000000)`.
- pflanze 9y ago
  Making the C stack large enough is not solving it on 32 bit architectures with enough physical RAM that you can't/don't want to waste address space. And on 64 bit architectures address space isn't a problem, but the memory from a temporary large stack can't be re-used without swapping the old stack contents out which is slow.
- bagels 9y ago
  Yes, you could make the stack larger, or, you could avoid needing to keep a gigantic useless stack in memory with this technique in the first place.
bjoli 9y ago
Well, both racket and guile dynamically grows/shrinks the stack. Chicken does not. It turns everything into tail calls and copies the stack when it's full and discards whatever is not in scope (simplified). Gambit seems to also not grow the stack dynamically, but I could be wrong.
- pflanze 9y ago
  First, I'm talking about the stack in Scheme (the high level language), since that's what we are talking about here (you gave map as an example); whether there's a C stack used underneath somewhere only matters in this context if its size is tied to the stack size available to Scheme programs. Also, some might argue that Scheme needs to implement call/cc and hence "can't use a stack" for storing Scheme call frames as that would not be efficient, which is correct if you tie the word "stack" to implementations as a single array only. A singly linked list can also work as a stack[1]. Since Scheme gives first class access to continuations, the "call stack" is sometimes correspondingly called the "continuation stack" instead, which then makes more sense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type) Gambit definitely does grow the Scheme continuation stack; if you let it grow infinitely, it increases memory use of the whole process until it swaps or runs into a memory limit set via ulimit -v; in the latter case the Gambit runtime throws an out of memory exception in some situations, or reports an out of memory error and exits the system in others. If the procedure returns, the memory is given back first to the heap and then at some point (if not re-used) to the OS. With regards to Chicken, as you say, it transforms the code into continuation passing style, allocates every continuation frame first on the C stack and then copies surviving frames into a second zone (it basically uses a generational garbage collector with 2 generations). Each long term continuation frame is essentially allocated on the heap (or whatever it is that the second zone is allocated from). Hence I expect that there is no limit on the size of the continuation stack in Chicken, either.

wyager 9y ago

Haskell does not have a recursion limit. You can freely use as much memory as you want via recursion. It doesn’t even really have a stack in the traditional sense. The STG machine does use a stack for evaluation, but it’s often completely different from what you might expect if function calls in Haskell actually necessarily corresponded to C-style functions. There is a default limit to the physical stack size, but it’s something like 512MB and you can change it with a command line flag. https://wiki.haskell.org/Stack_overflow https://wiki.haskell.org/Stack_overflow

zielmicha 9y ago

Even Python doesn't need to have stack limit - just make sure C stack is large enough (e.g. using ulimit or pthread_attr_setstacksize) and use `sys.setrecursionlimit(1000000000)`.

pflanze 9y ago
Making the C stack large enough is not solving it on 32 bit architectures with enough physical RAM that you can't/don't want to waste address space. And on 64 bit architectures address space isn't a problem, but the memory from a temporary large stack can't be re-used without swapping the old stack contents out which is slow.
bagels 9y ago
Yes, you could make the stack larger, or, you could avoid needing to keep a gigantic useless stack in memory with this technique in the first place.

bjoli 9y ago

Well, both racket and guile dynamically grows/shrinks the stack. Chicken does not. It turns everything into tail calls and copies the stack when it's full and discards whatever is not in scope (simplified). Gambit seems to also not grow the stack dynamically, but I could be wrong.

pflanze 9y ago
First, I'm talking about the stack in Scheme (the high level language), since that's what we are talking about here (you gave map as an example); whether there's a C stack used underneath somewhere only matters in this context if its size is tied to the stack size available to Scheme programs. Also, some might argue that Scheme needs to implement call/cc and hence "can't use a stack" for storing Scheme call frames as that would not be efficient, which is correct if you tie the word "stack" to implementations as a single array only. A singly linked list can also work as a stack[1]. Since Scheme gives first class access to continuations, the "call stack" is sometimes correspondingly called the "continuation stack" instead, which then makes more sense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type) Gambit definitely does grow the Scheme continuation stack; if you let it grow infinitely, it increases memory use of the whole process until it swaps or runs into a memory limit set via ulimit -v; in the latter case the Gambit runtime throws an out of memory exception in some situations, or reports an out of memory error and exits the system in others. If the procedure returns, the memory is given back first to the heap and then at some point (if not re-used) to the OS. With regards to Chicken, as you say, it transforms the code into continuation passing style, allocates every continuation frame first on the C stack and then copies surviving frames into a second zone (it basically uses a generational garbage collector with 2 generations). Each long term continuation frame is essentially allocated on the heap (or whatever it is that the second zone is allocated from). Hence I expect that there is no limit on the size of the continuation stack in Chicken, either.